State v. Deloney
2017 Ohio 9282
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- John Deloney was indicted for aggravated murder (death-penalty specification) and aggravated robbery; defense counsel asserted Atkins/Lott claim that Deloney is mentally retarded, potentially barring execution.
- Deloney and family repeatedly refused to cooperate with psychological evaluations; he declined standardized testing across multiple sessions with appointed experts.
- Experts (Drs. Smith and Dreyer) reviewed records and testified but could not definitively conclude current intellectual disability because of lack of testing and collateral informant data; school records showed low IQ and Vineland scores in adolescence.
- The trial court found Deloney met Lott/Atkins criteria (subaverage IQ, onset before 18, and significant adaptive limitations in multiple areas) and barred the death penalty.
- The state appealed, arguing the trial court’s finding lacked competent, credible evidence linking adaptive limitations to mental retardation, especially given absence of expert opinion tying current deficits to the condition.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Deloney proved mental retardation under Atkins/Lott | State: trial court erred; record lacks competent expert linkage tying adaptive deficits to intellectual disability | Deloney: school records and observed life-failure evidence show subaverage IQ, onset before 18, and adaptive deficits | Reversed: Deloney failed to meet burden; trial court decision not supported by competent, credible evidence |
| Whether adaptive limitations must be causally linked to intellectual disability by expert testimony | State: expert linkage required unless causation is within common knowledge | Deloney: factual evidence of functional failures suffices to show adaptive limitations caused by disability | Court: expert connection is necessary where adaptive deficits are not obviously caused by intellectual disability; trial court relied on lay inference improperly |
| Effect of Deloney’s refusal to cooperate with evaluations | State: refusal prevented experts from forming opinions; burden on Deloney to produce evidence | Deloney: refusal may reflect disability (e.g., stigma, cognitive inability) and does not negate prior records | Court: refusal undermined proof; experts could not attribute non-cooperation to disability and Deloney had been found competent to stand trial, so refusal did not prove adaptive deficits caused by intellectual disability |
| Sufficiency of school and limited records to prove current adaptive deficits | State: juvenile/school records alone do not prove current adaptive limitations without expert analysis of present functioning | Deloney: school IQ/Vineland scores and special-education placement show longstanding disability | Court: school records support low IQ and onset before 18 but do not suffice to prove current significant adaptive limitations without competent expert linkage |
Key Cases Cited
- Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (constitutional prohibition on executing mentally retarded offenders; states define procedures)
- State v. Lott, 97 Ohio St.3d 303 (Ohio framework for adjudicating Atkins claims: IQ, adaptive deficits in 2+ areas, onset before 18)
- State v. White, 118 Ohio St.3d 12 (trial courts may not disregard uncontradicted expert evidence; experts required to assess adaptive deficits)
- State v. Frazier, 115 Ohio St.3d 139 (importance of expert findings on adaptive limitations in Atkins claims)
- Terry v. Caputo, 115 Ohio St.3d 351 (causal medical opinions required to link condition and functional limitations)
- State v. Gumm, 169 Ohio App.3d 650 (trial court’s Atkins determination is factual and reviewed for support by credible evidence)